Fact-check fail
The AP's moronic "fact check" of Bill Clinton's speech suggests the term is rapidly losing all meaning

We don’t disagree. But Sarah Kliff's fact-check at WonkBlog is just as important. And CNN's attempt at a fact-check was also a sad, epic fail.

CNN and the AP are two of the biggest names in American news. When they are functioning in such remarkable ways, it highlights a point we have made for some time: Our intellectual culture lies in tatters. Our journalists are almost completely inept. No one seems able to help.

The post by Kliff was equally significant. In her fact-check, a site which is supposed to represent the deep end of the liberal intellectual pool scored Bill Clinton’s remarks on Medicare as “false” and as an example of “double-counting.”

Especially in these budget matters, the liberal world has been tolerating or affirming right-wing disinformation for the bulk of the past forty years. Kliff’s multiply bungled analysis extends that disastrous culture.

Clinton’s presentation was right on the money—until our very smartest liberals decided they should chime in. Who needs truth-killers like Rush Limbaugh? We can turn light to darkness ourselves!

Our intellectual culture has lay in ruins for a good many years. Our journalists are completely inept. The professors are on vacation in France.

The groaning fact-checks of Clinton’s address re-established this point in a major way. You really can’t run a modern nation this way.

38 comments:

I thought I understood the Medicare matter completely, till I read Sarah Kliff after the address by Bill Clinton. I know I am slow, but please review the matter again so I get it and can help others get it.

"The Medicare cuts, passed in the Affordable Care Act, come in the form of reimbursement reductions to hospitals, Medicaid prescription drugs and private insurance plans under Medicare Advantage. The Congressional Budget Office projects that they’ll extend the solvency of Medicare by eight years.AARP, the seniors’ lobby and chief gatekeeper of Medicare benefits, endorsed the Affordable Care Act despite its cuts, arguing that they wouldn’t affect seniors’ access to care. The law expanded benefits by closing the prescription drug coverage gap known as the “doughnut hole.” The hospital and drug industries also endorsed the legislation, believing that the additional customers via the coverage expansion would more than make up for the cuts."http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/difference-between-paul-ryan-barack-obama-medicare.php

The way I interpret it is Big Pharma is at the end of the government pipeline no matter what, so they are comfortable.

Indigents going to hospitals will now be insured, so hospitals will collect much more money.

I'm not so sure how Medicare Advantage will be affected. My provider, UnitedHealthcare recently sent me a short tract saying there would be no changes.

-- There is a Medicare Part A trust fund with Medicare payroll tax money that hasn't been spent yet. This trust fund is likely to be used up in about 11 years. (When the savings account goes to zero, Medicare will still be able to cover about 90% of its expenses from the payroll taxes.)

-- Because Medicare should be a little less expensive to run in the future, it will drain less money from the trust fund, which will thus last longer before going to zero.

-- Some of the savings have been allocated to improving Medicare part D (drugs), instead of "allocated" to extending the trust fund.

It is that simple. How this becomes framed as "robbing" money from Medicare completely escapes me.

Teacher1 - he said he'd cut "health care costs". Not the same thing, especially when you recognize that there is so much waste in our system. That waste is, by and large, in the for-profit sectors of our system.

By and large, I agree with the "cuts" that come about as a result of Obamacare not being called "cuts," because of the way they are structured, and because hospitals themselves have said they won't result in reduced services. But it's important not to get too invested in the idea. It's pretty plain that Obama is not averse to real cuts in the program as part of some masturbatory fantasy of a "Grand Bargain," and if you defend these non-cuts too aggressively now, if you buy too hard into the notion of cuts not being cuts, it becomes harder to push back down the road, as Obama's more blind supporters will describe all cuts, even real ones, as not really cuts at all.

There are two battles here: the first is to get Obama re-elected, which is really about making sure Romney and his crazy party aren't elected. The second battle is to keep Obama from fucking up too badly again, once he has won. You really have to fight both at the same time.

A vitally important correction. The difference between "lay" and "lain" is the sort of precipice upon which the fate of empires rests. It also allows one to pat oneself on the back for one's brilliance and education, which is, in the end, more important than the fate of empires. Bravo, sir or madam. Bravo.